Chicago airtel and LBH dated 5/2/68 and captioned "Richard Claxton Gregory" concern a speech by Gregory on 4/28/68 where he noted that "Syndicate hoods are living all over. They are the filthiest snakes that exist on this earth." Referenced Bulet instructed you to develop counterintelligence action concerning militant black nationalist Dick Gregory.

Consider the use of this statement in developing a counterintelligence operation to alert La Cosa Nostra (LCN) to Gregory's attack on LCN. It is noted that other speeches by Gregory also contain attacks on LCN. No counterintelligence action should be taken without Bureau authority.

TJD: pag/mrm

NOTE:

Teletype from New Orleans to Director, [UNREADABLE]/30/68, captioned "Richard Claxton Gregory" reported speech by Gregory referring to the Director and FBI Agents in derogatory terms. The Director noted, on the informative note of [UNREADABLE] teletype which said we would recommend counterintelligence against Gregory when indicated, "Right."

Brother Speaks to Brother.

The Blue Lodge consists of three separate degrees.

"The word degree, in its primitive meaning, signifies a step. The degrees of Freemasonry are, then, the steps by which the candidate ascends from a lower to a higher condition of knowledge."

Albert G. Mackey,

The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry , 1873

True Blue, Upright and True.

The Blue Code of Silence

"Additionally, a string of landmark Supreme Court decisions during the era gave new force both to individual privacy rights as well as to curbs upon Police Power: highly influential cases resulted in the strengthening of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable Search and Seizure, evidentiary rules forbidding the use at trial of evidence tainted by unconstitutional police actions, and the establishment of the so-called Miranda Warning requiring officers to advise detained suspects of their constitutional rights."

Emperor Napoleon I, with his characteristic Hidden Hand

President Andrew Johnson

Worst, most corrupt and least-popular US President Named Johnson ever.

Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson, United States Senate, 1867

"Hoover was a devoted Freemason, being raised a Master Mason on November 9, 1920, in Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington, DC, just two months before his 26th birthday. During his 52 years with the Masons, he received many medals, awards and decorations.

Eventually in 1955, he was coroneted a Thirty-Third Degree Inspector General Honorary in the Southern Scottish Rite Jurisdiction. He was also awarded the Scottish Rite's highest recognition, the Grand Cross of Honor, in 1965.

Today a J. Edgar Hoover room exists within the House of the Temple.

The room contains many of Hoover's personal papers and records."

"In Freemasonry, once you get past the 33rd Degree, they stop teaching from the Bible and start teaching from the Quran.

Now, that's some heavy shit."

- Bro. Steve Cokely

J. Edgar Hoover & President Harry S. Truman

(Fathers of the State of Is it Real?)

Warren Commissioner President Gerald R. Ford.

General Douglas A. MacAruthur Jr.

Prime Minister John Deifenbaker

The Hon. Elijah Muhammad - "The Messenger".

The Young Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) meeting Pasquale Paoli (1725-1807) in 1789, from a book on Corsica by J.A. Galetti, Paris

Pasquale Paoli (1725-1807) and the banner of the Uniòne Còrsa.

Map of the Anglo-Corsican Protectorate, 1796

"I have a presentiment that this little island will one day astonish Europe."

Rousseau,

The Social Contract

Motto

Amici e non di ventura

(English: Friends, and not by mere accident)

If ever you might need to refresh your memory and dispel some of the most pompous, self-righteous mythologies that have been built up around the History of World War II by most public school curricula in the NATO Countries and popular documentaries regarding allied goals, motivations and War Aims and some of the cynical compromises and secret deals that were brokered behind closed doors, one need only look at the Italian Campaign and the Mediterranean Theatre in general as a whole.

It's a known fact that following the Fall of Rome and the (first) collapse of the Mussolini Fascist State in 1943, Winston Churchill personally reinstated Fascist War Hero Field-Marshall Pietro Badoglio, 1st Duke of Addis Abeba, 1st Marquess of Sabotino (the Fascist Pétain?) as both the Commander in Chief of the Italian Armed Forces that the British and their allies had, up to that point, been fighting, but also threw his support to King Victor Emmanuel's decree firing Mussolini as Prime Minister and naming Badoglio to be his successor as the Head of Government.

Italy, it must be born in mind, in spite of Fascism, was a Kingdom going into World War I in 1914, and was (at least for a short transition period), a Kingdom coming out of World War II right up until 1946, with the same man as Head of State throughout that whole period - which provides an excellent model for study when looking at the question of power; after all, while the King had all the legal and technical power and authority over Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party, and Badoglio in theory was subject and subordinate to both of them, the Monarch retained the superficial trappings of actual power, Badoglio retained (and had earned) the respect of the fighting men, outward appearances aside, Mussolini had neither of these things, and everyone had lost confidence in him - even Hitler, who by way of the derring-do adventurism briefly restored Mussolini to power in the Salo Republic (much, I am sure to the chargin and better judgement of Mussolini, who had been enjoying some long earned peace and quiet in his little alpine prison), that was an act and a decision that says far more about Hitler and his face-saving agitprop than sound military strategy than any real liking of Mussolini or confidence in his ability (or willingness) to hold the line for the Axis powers on their Southern Flank.

Salo was a puppet reigime of a rump state, and must have been a felt like a significant come-down no blow to dignity of Mussolini's formerly so brash and boasting confident egoism to be drafted back into the service of such a lost cause. Not least because he clearly didn't want to do - and by subordinating his will to that of Hitler's, he abrogated the core Fascist principles of both his personal and Italian soverignty in service of purely interest, for the first time - but also because he knew that victory was impossible fighting the inevitable prolonged the agonising deathslide down right into Hell...

Mussolini wasn't stupid. But it's significant that he ran away initially, rather than trying to cut a deal.

And then later, when backed into a corner, presented with a poison chalice, faits accomplis by Hitler and Skorzeny, he found himself boxed in, with his back to the the wall, no way out and no friends.

And Mussolini was not unpopular. He was well-liked, not only by Churchill (who, again, stood up in the House of Commons in 1943 to praise him as "a very great man", and laud his achievements with the inter-war Italian ecconomy and progressive developments by way of Corporatism), but by most of the Anglo-American Ruling Class.

But not by the famous gangster, Bugsy Siegel.

Siegel, for reasons not immediately clear, had become absolutely obsessional in his hatred for Mussolini, which was pathological; when America entered the war, Siegel was actively scheming, pressing all the powerful and influential connections he had, trying to get an assassination scheme going to take out Mussolini, asking around everywhere he suspected there may be anyone that may have had the slightest possibility of somehow gaining access to Il Ducce and his circle.

More perceptive types will note well that he appears to have completely overlooked Hitler and Tojo, for some reason, as well as Goebells, Himmler and all of the much more outwardly degenerate personalities of the Axis Powers.

Bugsy wasn't even Italian - but he was in the Mob.

Two seemingly minor, but seemingly trivial questions relating to what seem now to be marginal events or sideshows to World History, the answers to both of which reveal a common, hidden hand lying behind the true reasons for both puzzling questions -

Why was Mussolini unable to cut a deal, and why was no-one other than Hitler prepared to come to his aid, when we know that he had previously had such widespread friendly support, and in contrast to the Nazi leadership, had caused relatively little insult or injury such as to cause him to have many enemies?

What's going on with Bugsey's fixation on killing Musolini so much?

Well, of course Mussolini did have some enemies - he wasn't a Mason.

And Bugsey was a made-guy in the mob.

According to Florabel Muir, "Four of the nine shots fired that night destroyed a white marble statue of Bacchus on a grand piano, and then lodged in the far wall."

155 North Gower Street, London

Mazzini's London Address.

"Mazzini’s work for the British extends far beyond Italy. Like the Foreign Office and the Admiralty which he serves, Mazzini encompasses the world. The Mazzini networks offer us a fascinating array of movements and personalities. There are agents and dupes, professional killers, fellow travelers, and criminal energy types.

Mazzini’s court of miracles was a public scandal.

Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, now the King of Belgium, has been complaining to his niece Queen Victoria that in London there is maintained “a sort of menagerie of Kossuths, Mazzinis, Legranges, Ledru-Rollins, etc. … to let loose occasionally on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.”

Indeed. On Feb. 21, 1854, this crew will come together at the home of the American consul, George Sanders: Mazzini, Felice Orsini, Garibaldi, Louis Kossuth, Arnold Ruge, Ledru-Rollin, Stanley Worcell, Aleksandr Herzen, and U.S. traitor and future President James Buchanan. There will also be a Peabody from the counting house.

"We can think of Mazzini as the zookeeper of a universal human zoo. Mazzini’s human zoo is divided into theme parks or pavilions, one for each ethnic group.

In a normal zoo there is an elephant house, a monkey house, an alligator pond, and the like. In Mazzini’s human zoo there is an Italian house, a Russian house, a Hungarian house, a Polish house, an American house. Let us walk through the various theme parks in the zoo and identify some of the specimens.

Young Italy, as we have seen, was founded in 1831, attracting the young sailor Giuseppe Garibaldi and Louis Napoleon. Shortly thereafter there followed Young Poland, whose leaders included the revolutionaries Lelewel and Worcell. Then came Young Germany, featuring Arnold Ruge, who had published some material by an obscure German “red republican” named Karl Marx. This is the Young Germany satirized by Heinrich Heine.

In 1834, Mazzini founded “Young Europe,” with Italian, Swiss, German, and Polish components. Young Europe was billed as the Holy Alliance of the Peoples, opposed to Metternich’s Holy Alliance of despots. By 1835, there was also a Young Switzerland. In that same year Mazzini launched Young France. The guiding light here was Ledru-Rollin, who later became the interior minister in Lamartine’s short-lived Second French Republic of 1848.

There was also Young Corsica, which was the Mafia.

Motto:

Amici e non di ventura

(English: Friends, and not by mere accident)

By the end of this century we will have a Young Argentina (founded by Garibaldi), Young Bosnia, Young India, Young Russia, Young Armenia, Young Egypt, the Young Czechs, plus similar groupings in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece. Mazzini is especially interested in creating a south Slavic federation dominated by Belgrade, and for that reason, he has a Serbian organization. That will have to wait for Mazzini’s student Woodrow Wilson and the Versailles peace conference of 1919.

Right now, a Masonic group in the United States is gearing up to support the pro-slavery doughface Franklin Pierce for President in 1852; they are the radical wing of the Democratic Party, and they call themselves Young America. In the future there will be the Young Turks.

And yes, there is also a Palmerston-Mazzini group for Jews, sometimes called Young Israel, and sometimes called B’nai B’rith."

In common with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Pope, Mussolini had outlawed Freemasonry upon coming to power and smashed up the Lodge system (literally), seizing property and jailing those found conducting meetings; a measure of the ongoing impact of the sheer effectiveness of this clampdown, all the inductees into Propaganda Due was inducted into the order by way of illicit meetings conducted in Licio Gelli's hotel room.

Propaganda Due (P2) was the Masonic Staybehind infrastructure of the Grand Lodge of the Orient, and just as it came later to work in parallel with GLADIO planning and domestic counterinsurgency operations, just as GLADIO represented a Shadow Government staybehind paramilitary and military command and control structure, P2 represented a Shadow Government Staybehind Civic and State Continuity of Government, entrusted to the care only of "sound" individuals, of good moral character and the right background.

Just a quick reminder, when Americans in general, and the European Rulling Oligarchy use the word "background", what they really mean is "class", "class loyalty". When the shit goes down, the balloon goes up and the missiles start to fly, they have to be sure that those they have chose will protect their class privileges first, and turn their guns on their own, in order to prevent "a breakdown of law and order".

Remember :

The Black Citizens of New Orleans are looting goods from flooded out stores;

The White Citizens of New Orleans are out gathering food and supplies to feed their starving families while they wait for help to arrive.

"George Bush doesn't care about black people".

"What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism."

Winston Churchill,

Entered Apprentice,

Studholme Lodge No 1591, 24 May of 1901

in a letter to Mussolini, after a visit to Rome (1927)

"My labor had not been easy nor light; our Masonry had spun a most intricate net of anti-religious activity; it dominated the currents of thought; it exercised its influence over publishing houses, over teaching, over the administration of justice and even over certain dominant sections of the armed forces. To give an idea of how far things had gone, this significant example is sufficient. When, in parliament, I delivered my first speech of November 16, 1922, after the Fascist revolution, I concluded by invoking the assistance of God in my difficult task.

Well, this sentence of mine seemed to be out of place! In the Italian parliament, a field of action for Italian Masonry, the name of God had been banned for a long time. Not even the Popular party — the so-called Catholic party — had ever thought of speaking of God. In Italy, a political man did not even turn his thoughts to the Divinity. And, even if he had ever thought of doing so, political opportunism and cowardice would have deterred him, particularly in a legislative assembly. It remained for me to make this bold innovation! And in an intense period of revolution! What is the truth! It is that a faith openly professed is a sign of strength.

I have seen the religious spirit bloom again; churches once more are crowded, the ministers of God are themselves invested with new respect. Fascism has done and is doing its duty."

Benito Mussolini,

My Autobiography (1928)

"Benito Mussolini decreed in 1924 that every member of his Fascist Party who was a Mason must abandon either one or the other organization, and in 1925, he dissolved Freemasonry in Italy, claiming that it was a political organisation.

One of the most prominent Fascists, General Cappello, who had also been Deputy Grand Master of the Grande Oriente, Italy's leading Grand Lodge, gave up his membership in the Fascist Party rather than in Masonry.

He was later arrested on false charges and sentenced to 30 years in jail."

"From the heights of these pyramids, forty centuries look down on us."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Speech to his troops in Egypt

21 July 1798

There is a blue plaque on the wall of 155 North Gower Street, in London, to commemorate Mazzini's time spent living as an exile in Britain. (Next door to 155, is 157 North Gower Street which doubles as 221b Baker Street in the BBC adaptation of Sherlock.)

Los Angeles TimesMay 23, 1981 - p. 8

Masonic Lodge ScandalShakes Italian Regime

From Reuters

ROME — The Italian Cabinet appears certain to be reshuffled and the government could fall in the wake of revelation that several prominent politicians belong to a secret Masonic lodge, parliamentary sources said Friday.

The membership list of the P-2 Lodge was published Thursday by order of Prime Minister Arnaldo Forlani, and among the 963 people named were two Cabinet ministers, 30 members of Parliament, the leader of a government party, the chief of the defense staff and the heads of the secret service.

Lodge brothers included Michele Sindona, serving 25 years in jail in the United States in connection with the collapse of his banking empire, and Roberto Calvi and Paolo Bonomi, two Milan financiers arrested this week for fraud.

All members swore loyalty to Licio Gelli, the lodge's grand master who fled abroad during investigations into allegations he was involved in a gasoline fraud scandal last year that is said to have cost the government up to $2 billion.

"Membership of the party and adherence to the Freemasons cannot be other than incompatible," said Flaminio Piccoli, secretary of the Christian Democrats, which head the four-party governing coalition.

Another coalition party, the Social Democrats, whose leader Pietro Longo was on the Masonic list, took a more relaxed view. But the small Republican Party regards the matter with alarm. "The P-2 Lodge, ostensibly a Masonic organization, in reality seems to have been a center of hidden and corrupt power . . .," party secretary Giovanni Spadolini said.

The Socialists, without whom the government cannot survive, have not declared their position. President Sandro Pertini has demanded that the government clarify the whole issue.

The Hollywood Conspiracy

TRB

January 16, 1992|By TRB

WASHINGTON. — Washington -- Oliver Stone is in the doghouse over his movie, ''JFK.'' He stands accused of trashing history; of glorifying a dangerous lunatic, New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison; and of polluting the minds of a generation too young to remember the real events. His message: America is controlled by a vast conspiracy in the government and media, of which Lee Harvey Oswald was just a minor player and possibly an innocent dupe.

But the problem goes far beyond Oliver Stone. He is just a minor player, and possibly an innocent dupe, of a conspiracy to twist the truth that includes virtually all of Hollywood. The media, I'm sorry to report, are involved in this conspiracy as well. How else to explain their obsessive focus on Oliver Stone and ''JFK,'' while more dangerous malefactors escape unscathed? Is it just a coincidence that Oliver Stone is vilified for glamorizing Jim Garrison, while Warren Beatty gets nothing but praise for glamorizing the far more odious figure of mobster Bugsy Siegel?

To be sure, the hero of ''Bugsy'' kills a couple of people. But who can hold that against such a charmer and visionary? ''He's classically heroic, in a way,'' explains Mr. Beatty's co-star Annette Bening, accurately capturing the movie's viewpoint. ''He has a fatal flaw -- he has hubris.'' Says Meyer Lansky in the movie itself: ''He isn't even interested in money. He's interested in the idea.'' Sex and ideas: a veritable Gary Hart.

Bugsy, writes the New York Times approvingly, is ''the archetypal American dreamer.'' In the movie, standing in the middle of a barren desert, Beatty/Bugsy imagines Las Vegas. ''It came to me like a vision, like a religious epiphany,'' the character says. In fact, according to ''Little Man,'' Robert Lacey's recent biography of Meyer Lansky, Siegel didn't even come close to inventing Las Vegas. There were already two large luxury casino-hotels on the Las Vegas ''Strip'' before his. Even the Flamingo Hotel itself wasn't Bugsy's idea. He invested in it after construction had started, and later forced out the real founder in the usual unsavory manner.

''Bugsy'' makes much of Siegel's alleged patriotic desire to assassinate Mussolini. In fact, according to ''We Only Kill Each Other,'' a 1967 biography of Siegel by Dean Jennings, Bugsy actually did business with Mussolini. The dictator sent him $40,000 as an advance on delivery of a new kind of explosive in which Siegel -- visionary as ever -- had invested. Only after the failure of a demonstration -- for which Siegel went to Italy, socialized with Mussolini (plus Goebbels and Goering), and notably failed to assassinate him -- did relations deteriorate.

Clearly, then, Warren Beatty and the New York Times are involved in a conspiracy, along with the rest of the entertainment-informational complex, to destroy the American Dream for generations too young to remember where they were the day Bugsy Siegel was shot. By glamorizing bloody criminals, they are poisoning children's minds against real American heroes like Lee Iacocca and Robert Stempel.

But ''Bugsy'' is not this conspiracy's darkest achievement of late. That encomium belongs to Walt Disney Studios' vicious misrepresentation of ''Beauty and the Beast,'' which distorts several key episodes, makes up new characters out of whole cloth, and dangerously undermines the psychological structure of the tale.

Psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim discusses ''Beauty and the Beast'' his classic book on fairy tales, ''The Uses of Enchantment.'' If I've got this right, the tale is really about the healthy transformation of a child's oedipal attachment to a parent into romantic love for a more suitable object. When Beauty's love turns the Beast into a handsome prince, ''This foreshadows by centuries the Freudian view that sex must be experienced by the child as disgusting as long as his sexual longings are attached to his parent,'' but when directed at someone else, ''sexual longings no longer seem beastly.''

As for the Beast, his side of the story is about ''an evolution from a self-centered, immature (phallic-aggressive-destructive) sexuality to one that finds its fulfillment in a human relation of deep devotion.'' In short, ''the marriage of Beauty and the Beast is the humanization and socialization of the id by the superego.''

The Disney people mangle all these subconscious themes in ways that inevitably will cause grave psychological trauma to young viewers. If the transferral of affection from father to lover is disrupted, the long-term effect on our gross national product could be severe.

In the movie, Beauty rejects the equation between handsomeness and virtue from the very beginning, thus short-circuiting the tale's crucial moral development. In the original story, Beauty asks her father for a rose. When he breaks one off its stem to give to her, says Bettelheim, it symbolizes her loss of virginity. In the movie, it is the Beast who possesses a rose, wilting in a glass case for lack of love. Goodness knows what tender ids will make of that.

Space limitations prevent full delineation of Hollywood's plot against our nation's future. Clearly ''The Addams Family,'' with its celebration of dysfunctional parents and children, is part of the conspiracy. I'm not saying that ''JFK'' was intended to distract us from the real danger. I'm just raising the possibility.

TRB, written by Michael Kinsley, is a column of The New Republic magazine.

It’s all up with the “black cabinet” of Washington,” read theWashington Evening Star. Congressional hearings were then underway into the practice by which the U.S. Secret Service loaned investigators to other federal agencies, primarily the Justice Department. As a result of these hearings, Rep. Walter Smith (R-IA) declared that “Nothing is more opposed to our race than a belief that a general system of espionage is being conducted by the general government,” and Rep. John Fitzgerald (D-NY) warned against the dangers of a federal secret police.1 As a result of these hearings Congress forbade the Secret Service from loaning investigators to other departments. Having lost access to those investigators, Attorney General Bonaparte created a small force of detectives for the Department of Justice (DOJ); this was the predecessor of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because Congress had condemned “secret services,” “black cabinets,” spies, and detectives at this time, many Bureau critics have charged that the FBI was created in opposition to Congress’s will and so was born illegitimately.2 This was not so.

President Theodore Roosevelt

Prior to 1908, the Justice Department had no organized force of investigators to gather evidence. It relied on detectives hired from the Secret Service and, for a while private detectives. Under President Theodore Roosevelt, this began to change. The vigorous application of older laws and the increase in new ones that occurred during his administration began to tax the Justice Department’s ability to detect crime. In 1906, 60 Secret Service operatives were needed; the next year, 65. These investigators came from a reserve force of about 20 that the Secret Service kept to help other departments as well as a list maintained by Chief John Wilkie of some 300 other investigators who had applied for Secret Service positions, were already vetted by the Treasury Department, but for whom no position was available.3

This system had worked for many years, but in 1906, Congress began to question it. That January, Appropriations Committee chairman James Tawney (R-MN) asked Assistant Attorney General Glover where the Department of Justice got its “secret service,” i.e. detectives. “Generally from the Treasury Department,” Glover replied.4 Why, Tawney pressed, didn’t the Department rely on its own investigators? Glover answered, there weren’t enough in the Department for the work that needed to be done, but “some persons … have considered the question … as to whether the Department ought to have its own secret service force.” “That is a different proposition altogether,” Tawney snapped. Glover quickly added that the Department had rejected the idea as too costly.5

Tawney complained that the Secret Service loan program gave “what Congress would never authorize, …a secret-service bureau in every Department,” thereby creating “a system of espionage in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the theory of our government.” Glover insisted that the Department needed detectives to investigate “violations of the law” and Tawney backtracked. The Justice Department, he averred, “ought to be clothed with all the machinery necessary to conduct prosecutions,” adding, if other Departments need “to use secret-service men they should obtain authority from Congress …[so that] the advisability of maintaining the service throughout our Government would be determined by Congress.” Tawney’s concern could not have been of pressing importance. He did not seriously revisit the issue for two years, though he kept tabs on the use of Secret Service operatives during this time.

Charles Bonaparte

Charles Bonaparte, who was appointed attorney general in March 1907, quickly became convinced that the practice of using Secret Service investigators was a problem. His lack of complete control over the investigators, he later argued, meant that he “had no direct information as to what they did, and …but an imperfect control over the expenses which they might incur.” In his Annual Report, Bonaparte called Congress’s attention “to the anomaly that the Department of Justice has no …permanent detective force under its immediate control.”6 He asked that “provision be made for a force of this character; its number and the form of its organization to be determined by the scope of the duties which the Congress may see fit to intrust [sic] to it.” In January 1908 he followed up his request in person. Bonaparte reminded the House Appropriation subcommittee of his earlier request and complained that the Justice Department had “to rely on the secret service of the Treasury Department,” which had just “gone up on us in price.”

Chairman Tawney questioned Bonaparte on how these investigators were paid. “The reason I asked,” he lectured, “is that there is a specific appropriation for [the Secret Service] and…a proviso that the appropriation should be extended for no other service.” The Executive, Tawney thought, should not be loosely interpret the strictures of the law. Roosevelt’s position, though not stated at these hearings, was that what was not forbidden by the law was allowed, hence as president, he had wide discretion in marshaling the executive power. Tawney opposed this and sought to uphold Congress’s authority. It was this concern that fueled his anger at the Secret Service and Roosevelt.7 It is ironic that Bonaparte’s request re-ignited Tawney’s concern; Bonaparte was clearly trying to do as the Chairman had asked, i.e. go to Congress for authority to create a detective force.

During February and March following Bonaparte’s second request, Tawney’s committee held a series of hearings about the Secret Service practice. The most significant testimony came on March 24, 1908 from William H. Moran, assistant chief of Secret Service. Under questioning, Moran discussed a controversial investigation conducted by Secret Service investigators who surveiled a Navy midshipman who had run away with a married woman.8 The more important issue raised in Moran’s testimony, though, concerned the legitimacy of the investigator loan program and Tawney continued his sharp criticism of it.9 Incensed about the matter Tawney’s Subcommittee drafted an amendment to kill the loan practice. Toward the end of April, the Fiscal Year 1909 Sundry Civil Appropriation bill came before the House for debate and Tawney’s amendment, among others, was added to it. The opposition was sparse.

Roosevelt now entered the debate. Of especial concern to him were provisions concerning the Interstate Commerce Commission, a limit on wages that could be paid in Panama, and the end of the Secret Service loan practice. Each of these measures struck at presidential management style and understanding of the powers of his office. Each sought to limit Roosevelt’s ability to act without congressional input. They were widely welcomed in the House as it, which although under control of Roosevelt’s party, chaffed at its apparent loss of power to a popular and aggressive president.

Lobbying against the bill, Roosevelt wrote to Speaker Joseph Cannon, asking that the problematic sections be killed. Regarding the Secret Service provision he argued that it would “materially interfere with the administration of justice and will benefit only one class of people—and that is the criminal class.”10 In a handwritten post-script, he added, “there is no more foolish outcry than this against “spies”; only criminals need fear our detectives.”11

His low-key lobbying had little effect. On May 1, 1908, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider amendments to bill. Debate over the Secret Service limitation amendment covered several issues, including: 1) the illegality of the Secret Service practice; 2); concern over investigative functions in the government; and 3) the question of whether congressmen should be investigated by the executive branch.12

Representative Parsons (NY) asked Chairman Tawney, “Does the gentleman think it desirable to have a general detective service for the Government.” “No; I do not,” replied Tawney, nor did he want each agency to have its own detective force. Justice could get detectives in the same way it had done so prior to its reliance on Secret Service personnel, he argued. “There is nothing in this provision to prevent” the Justice Department from “…simply selecting a man from [the Treasury Department’s long waiting list of acceptable applicants] and employing” him as needed to investigate crimes.

Representative J. S. Sherley (KY) pointed out that every time Congress had taken legislative action against the Secret Service it was to reign in its power. Representative Bennet, the primary opponent of the limitation, challenged this claim and he and Sherley got into an argument about the propriety of the Navy Department’s use of investigators in the case of the adulterous midshipman. Debate shifted to whether congressmen were fitting targets for investigation by “secret-service men.” Bennet avoided the question by providing a philosophical disquisition on the role of Congress in the government and the need for congressmen to police themselves.

“All this committee is asking,” Rep. Smith proclaimed, “is that the expressed and declared purpose of Congress existing [in the Secret Service appropriation] for a quarter of a century shall be obeyed.” Smith’s point drew much applause, suggesting the House was on the side of restricting the executive. Representative Fitzgerald seconded Smith’s point, adding: “There has been an effort once or twice to create a general police system under the Federal Government,” but it has failed. When a federal attorney needs an investigator, Fitzgerald suggested, he could find one locally like any other attorney would do. Bennet quickly challenged him, reminding Fitzgerald that most attorneys would hire a private detective for such work, but the law barred federal agencies from doing this. Fitzgerald countered weakly that federal agencies could employ investigators found on the Secret Service’s eligible applicant list instead.

As the debate began to wind down, Representative Driscoll suggested that there should be one secret service in the government, housed where there was the most need for investigators, and capable of loaning detectives to other departments as needed. Tawney quickly attacked his suggestion, stating that this was what the amendment wanted to prevent. Bennet then challenged Tawney over the usefulness of the loan practice, but he was interrupted by cries of “Vote!” The debate was ended and the limitation on the Secret Service quickly approved. The Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill passed the House soon after.

Not surprisingly, Justice Department officials were deeply concerned about this turn of events. United States Attorney Henry Stimson wrote Bonaparte on May 6th, “Is there no way in which the Bill can be stopped in the Senate?”13 He enclosed a New York Times editorial. The Times blasted the “combination of ‘land sharks’” that had swayed the House, making the Representatives “become the tools of thieves.”14Bonaparte promptly forwarded the gist of the letter and clipping to Senator Allison of the Senate Appropriation Committee.

Perhaps the Senate took heed of the Time’s criticism. The bill as passed in the Senate did not have the Secret Service provision. A conference committee was convened to reconcile the difference and, at the House’s insistence, the Secret Service amendment was re-added to the final measure.15 The Conference Report on the bill was passed overwhelmingly with little fanfare on May 17, 1908. The President quickly signed it; his complaints were insufficiently strong to risk significant appropriations for key programs. A veto would likely have been overridden anyway given the margins by which the measure passed.16 The Congress adjourned for the summer. The provision regarding the use of Secret Service operatives would take effect at the start of the new fiscal year, July 1, 1908.

Stanley W. Finch

Within days of this deadline, Attorney General Bonaparte began a small reorganization of Justice Department to address the impending loss of access to the Secret Service operatives. With little fanfare, he began to group together the sundry investigators of the department and nine Secret Service agents permanently hired as Justice special agents. On July 26, 1908, Bonaparte ordered DOJ attorneys to refer most investigative matters to the Chief Examiner, Stanley W. Finch, who would determine if there were special agents under his direction available to investigate the case.17

When Bonaparte announced the creation of a special agent force to Congress that fall in his Annual Report, he must have considered the action a fait accompli. In fact, if President Roosevelt had not inserted himself into the matter, it would have elicited little if any opposition. Instead, in his December 1908 annual message to Congress, the lame-duck Roosevelt ignited a fierce political battle. He declared: “The chief argument in favor of [the Secret Service] amendment was that Congressmen themselves did not wish to be investigated.” The House immediately demanded that Roosevelt present any evidence he had to back up his claim. A special committee was created to consider the evidence Roosevelt might supply. Five days later, the Senate adopted a similar resolution. Washington was in an uproar.

On January 4, 1909 he publicly took up Congress’s challenge and, in Congress’s eyes, retreated. Roosevelt argued that the House must be mistaken. He had not accused Congress as a whole, nor identified any specific members as motivated by fear of being investigated. Instead, the President continued, his criticism flowed from an analysis of the arguments on the House floor during debate over the bill. His claims, he replied, were drawn specifically from the remarks of Tawney, Sherley, Smith, Fitzgerald, and Cannon.

The House was not appeased. A resolution to rebuke the President was. Debate over it mirrored that concerning the Secret Service limitation. Representatives Fitzpatrick, Sherley, and Tawney all rose to denounce the president and to deny his claim that they had opposed the Secret Service loan practice out of fear of being spied upon. Rep. Bennet defended Roosevelt, arguing that there was evidence that fear of investigation had been a motive in Congress’s action.

An important silence ran through this debate. No one criticized Bonaparte’s force of special agents. In fact, the comments made were favorable and many of these came from the proponents of the Secret Service limitation. In answering Bennet’s charge that the Secret Service limitation hindered the discovery and prosecution of crimes, Fitzgerald replied that since July 1908, U.S. Attorney’s had been able to call upon Justice Department detectives. He added approvingly that this force operated under the proper appropriation.18 The limitation, Fitzgerald concluded, had not prevented the Attorney General from acquiring the “special force, which he believed preferable to the use of the secret-service men of the Treasury.”

Other critics of the President took similar positions. Tawney noted that Congress had not restricted the ability of any department “to employ detectives or secret service men;” it only forbade details or transfers of investigators from the Secret Service division. All other appropriations for detective services were left untouched. In fact, Tawney added, they were all increased including that for the Secret Service Division itself. Representative Smith added that there was “no limit whatever upon the power of any department in the selection of its numerous special agents and inspectors.” Congress’s action was simply to prevent “the old system of law defiance and law evasion,” he concluded.19

The House passed its rebuke of President Roosevelt with 212 yeas to 36 nays; five members abstained from voting, and 135 members did not vote. The portions of the president’s message and reply deemed offensive were tabled and the House immediately passed an additional resolution authorizing an ad hoc committee chaired by Representative Olmstead into all aspects of the Secret Service. Almost immediately, the scope of this investigation was drastically narrowed.

The Senate itself chose to ignore the president’s earlier slight. Roosevelt claimed victory.20 The administration even thought it likely that Bonaparte’s force would gain not only firm legislative sanction in the fiscal year 1909 appropriations, but that it could be given authority to recreate the old Secret Service loan practice under Justice Department control.

By that point, few cared to continue the political battle. Even so, some of the old opposition from Tawney’s committee refused to die, but Congress was moving in a different direction. On March 3, an ad hoc committee on the Secret Service suggested that the regular authorization of both agent forces should be made part of the regular appropriations bills of Treasury and Justice. Roosevelt left office the next day, as did Charles Bonaparte. Two days later, the new Attorney General, George Wickersham, issued a formal order creating the Bureau of Investigation. Within two years, Congress had tripled the size of this force and greatly broadened its investigative authority.

Several things clearly emerge in this story. The original limitation on the Secret Service was passed largely due to the efforts of James Tawney and the other members of his subcommittee, Sherley, Smith, and Fitzpatrick. Congress as whole passed it as a means to restrain Roosevelt’s expansion of executive power even though the President’s party controlled both houses. The debates barely touched on intelligence issues and delved into law enforcement ones to illustrate concerns with abuses of “secret services.” Dissatisfaction with how Roosevelt exercised the powers of his office and how he treated Congress clearly underlined the debate. Quotes like those made at the start of this paper were rhetorical bludgeons wielded in political battle with Roosevelt. The real reason for this battle was the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, not hyperbolic fears of a police state. Critics have missed this key feature of the debate, opting instead for a sensationalistic denunciation of Bonaparte’s infant special agent force to criticize the mature Federal Bureau of Investigation.21

[2] See Max Lowenthal’s book titled The Federal Bureau of Investigation, [New York: William Sloane Associates, 1950]; Fred Cook’s book The FBI Nobody Knows [New York: MacMillan, 1964]; Vern Countryman’s essay “The History of the FBI: Democracy’s Development of a Secret Police Force,” in Investigating the FBI, ed. by Pat Watters and Stephen Gillers, [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1973]; and Athan Theoharis’s “A Brief History of the FBI and its Powers,” in Theoharis et al., The FBI: A Comprehensive Research Guide [Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1999].

[3] This claim is based on a reading of the debates in Congress and the appropriations testimony of Secret Service and DOJ personnel. Especially pertinent was 42 CR pp. 5557 and 5558.

[4] House. Hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations for Deficiency Appropriations for 1906 and Prior Years on Urgent Deficiency Bill, 1/13/1906, pp. 185-186. All quotes from these hearings in the paragraphs that follow come from this source.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Annual Report of the Attorney General for the Fiscal Year 1907, pp. 9-10.

[7] House. Hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations consisting of Messrs. Tawney, Vreeland, Keifer, Brundige, Jr., and Livingston for Deficiency Appropriations for 1908 and Prior Years on Urgent Deficiency Bill, Friday, 1/17/1908, pp. 202-203.

[8] Williams, “Without Understanding,” p.33.

[9] My reading of the law suggests that the Secret Service practice was not as clear a violation as Tawney claimed. The practice appears to have been extra-legal rather than illegal. A prima facie case may be made in support of the administration’s claim that it was an acceptable use of appropriations granted to it even though the practice was not officially sanctioned by the law. Maintaining a list of previous applicants in anticipation of future hiring was legitimate. Furthermore, this procedure had been in practice during both Democrat and Republican Administrations since the 1880’s and had not been questioned prior to 1906 as far as can be determined.

[14] Undated editorial [between 29 April and 6 May 1908], New York Times, DOJ files 44-3-11-sub 3, (2/24/06 to 6/25/08).

[15] The Conference Committee consisted of William B. Allison, Eugene Hale, and Henry M. Teller from the Senate and James A. Tawney, J. J. Fitzgerald, and Cong. Smith from the House [43 CR p.674].

[16] Gatewood, Theodore Roosevelt and the Art of Controversy, p.251.

[17] The FBI has traditionally accepted 7/26/1908 as its birth date. It is not known why the Bureau took this date, although the assignment of all Department investigations to the special agent force is good reason for signifying that day as the official one. The Appel history, cited above, does not mention it, although later FBI chronologies like “A Digested History of the FBI,” [1940], do. Two investigative matters were not assigned to Bonaparte’s new special agent force: 1) certain banking matters handled by a special group of examiners; and 2) naturalization matters.

[18] Ibid., p.652.

[19] Ibid., pp. 674, 675.

[20] Gatewood, pp. 275-276.

[21] The exception is David J. Williams, “Without Understanding: The FBI and Political Surveillance, 1908-1941,” [unpublished Dissertation, University of New Hampshire, 1981]. His exposition avoids many of the pitfalls of selectively reading these debates into which the polemicists have fallen.

"Was Napoleon Bonaparte a Freemason? If so why? Napoleon has been put in the same catagory as Hitler when it coes to Genocide. He is responisble for the murdering of at least 100,000 Carribean slaves. I read, in from what it looks like Masonic men call Napoleon a hero and ther,s a Lodge named after him. Why is that?"

A Short Definition of Synarchism

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

"Synarchism" is a name adopted during the Twentieth Century for an occult freemasonic sect, known as the Martinists, based on worship of the tradition of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. During the interval from the early 1920s through 1945, it was officially classed by U.S.A. and other nations' intelligence services under the file name of "Synarchism: Nazi/Communist," so defined because of its deploying simultaneously both ostensibly opposing pro-communist and extreme right-wing forces for encirclement of a targetted government. Twentieth-Century and later fascist movements, like most terrorist movements, are all Synarchist creations.

Synarchism was the central feature of the organization of the fascist governments of Italy, Germany, Spain, and Vichy and Laval France, during that period, and was also spread as a Spanish channel of the Nazi Party, through Mexico, throughout Central and South America. The PAN party of Mexico was born as an outgrowth of this infiltration. It is typified by the followers of the late Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojève today.

This occult freemasonic conspiracy, is found among both nominally left-wing and also extreme right-wing factions such as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the Mont Pelerin Society, and American Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute, and the so-called integrist far right inside the Catholic clergy. The underlying authority behind these cults is a contemporary network of private banks of that medieval Venetian model known as fondi. The Synarchist Banque Worms conspiracy of the wartime 1940s, is merely typical of the role of such banking interests operating behind sundry fascist governments of that period.

The Synarchists originated in fact among the immediate circles of Napoleon Bonaparte; veteran officers of Napoleon's campaigns spread the cult's practice around the world. G.W.F. Hegel, a passionate admirer of Bonaparte's image as Emperor, was the first to supply a fascist historical doctrine of the state. Nietzsche's writings supplied Hegel's theory the added doctrine of the beast-man-created Dionysiac terror of Twentieth-Century fascist movements and regimes. The most notable fascist ideologues of post-World War II academia are Chicago University's Leo Strauss, who was the inspiration of today's U.S. neo-conservative ideologues, and Strauss's Paris co-thinker Alexandre Kojève.

Synarchy Against America

by Anton ChaitkinThis article is the product of a task force of EIR historians studying the history of Synarchism for the past half year. Together with Lyndon LaRouche's treatment of the current strategic threat of Synarchism ("World Nuclear War When?"EIR, Aug. 29, 2003), and other material, it will be published in September in a LaRouche in 2004 campaign report. More articles are forthcoming.Contributing to this article were Pierre Beaudry, Irene Beaudry, Jeffrey Steinberg, Antony Papert, and the late H. Graham Lowry.

Introduction: The Adversaries at Bowood

The menace now confronting humanity from Washington's Cheney-Rumsfeld regime is a usurpation of power by financier terror leaders; the final, mad phase of a two-centuries-long project—to counteract the stunning success of the American Revolution and America's intervention in world affairs. This enemy totalitarian project came to be self-named, about a century ago, as "Synarchism."To defeat it requires historical understanding, which can never consist merely of stupid lists of crimes and plots, however complex. It must instead be the story of the central fight for man's mind—and for the strategic direction of nations—over the question: Does the Creator give man Reason to shape scientific and social progress, or must "authority" manage men, as indistinguishable from beasts?This is the persistent, nagging problem in intelligence analysis generally: Here are perpetrators, associated for such and such a purpose; here are those we judge good, in their earnest projects; yes, but how have those, with the power to shape large events, intervened to fuel or stall these actors, in line with the global, paradigmatic ideas guiding the power of those strategy-shapers?The creation of the American republic was projected and built for by Europe's republican philosophers and statesmen, from Plato's humanism through and beyond the revival of knowledge in the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance. The American settlements of the 1600s were designed to make a renewed Renaissance base, safe from the tyranny of Europe's Venice-centered imperial rulers and their manipulated wars of religion and revenge. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia gave Europe a respite and a direction for survival. But the world's real hope was in America. Increase and Cotton Mather, John Winthrop, Alexander Spotswood, and at length, the scientist Benjamin Franklin—allied in ideas and action with the greatest minds of Europe, Gottfried Leibniz, Jonathan Swift, and their friends—all together contesting with Europe's feudal-minded financial powers over the fate of the human race.Benjamin Franklin's world-famous scientific inquiries were informed by Plato's teaching, and by Franklin's participation in the trans-Atlantic war for the mind,[1] led by Leibniz, against the British empiricist "dead universe" advocates Isaac Newton and John Locke.Franklin was already to be seen, in the early 1770s, leading a world movement for self-government and scientific progress. Then living in England as the agent of the colonies, Franklin frequently visited the Earl of Shelburne at his Bowood estate. Shelburne chaired the all-powerful three-man "Secret Committee" of the East India Company, which also included Francis Baring of the banking house that bore his name. Shelburne was the most sophisticated representative of the frankly Satanic financier powers behind the British throne.The East India Company, a Royal-chartered private joint-stock company, represented the pinnacle of mid-18th-Century power, of what was known as the "Venetian Party" of rentier-financier oligarchs, who derived their global power from near monopoly control over key raw materials and commodities, insurance, banking, and shipping routes. The East India Company of Shelburne's "Secret Committee" deployed a more modern and large-scale military force than did the British Crown, maintaining control over their private fiefdoms in India and other parts of the world. The Company represented the gradual merger of British and Dutch financier factions, and, thus, operated above any notion of individual national loyalties. In effect, Shelburne was the "doge" of the combined British and continental European financier oligarchy.The two wary, urbane, chief opponents—Franklin and Shelburne—constantly took each others' measure. Shelburne had to be the negotiating partner: Franklin knew Shelburne favored some concessions to the Americans, fearing that simple, brutal British repression would lead to an uncontrolled colonial revolt.Their overlapping international circles often met and mingled at Bowood for liberal colloquy and friendly, tense, mutual intelligence-gathering. One might see there, for example, Shelburne's pagan French priest, Abbé Morellet, jousting with Franklin over magic and reason; while Franklin's scientific protégé and agent, Joseph Priestley, arranged his employer Shelburne's library.Soon the U.S. declared independence, and Franklin won the kingdom of France as its Revolutionary ally. He inspired, at England's back door, the anti-British freedom struggle in Ireland, now emboldened by Britain's united enemies. America's cause was increasingly popular, praised as just and rational, esteemed as mankind's future, from Russia, to Joseph II's Austria, to Charles III's Spain, to South America.For the threatened imperialists, Shelburne raised a positively hellish counterattack against the increasing American momentum. Shelburne's cadres and occultist agents threw France into bloody confusion and terror, then "solved" the chaos with Napoleon's tyranny that plundered Europe, leaving France ruined and America isolated.This criminal initiative echoed down through the 19th and 20th Centuries, the model for the Synarchist movement of leading bankers, who opposed the persisting American power by spawning fascism and fundamentalist terror.

Shelburne's Bestiary

The world saw in Franklin's America the resurgent principles of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that had ended Europe's Thirty Years' War: national sovereignty, coupled with renunciation of revenge, the banning of religious crusades and similar pretexts for eternal war. This orderly framework, with government protection for industry, and public credit, would lead to educated citizens, truth-seekers, inventors, who could increase their productive power and prosperity—man in the Divine image.The British rulers and their Continental European factional allies went to total war to reverse the gears of mankind's progress, to obliterate the Peace of Westphalia they hated, and its American incarnation. Shelburne acted for the imperial looters, adventurers, and speculators who gained absolute power behind Britain's Kings George I, II, and III.This oligarchy had spoken most bluntly through the shameless Mephistophelian writer, Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733). He demanded absolute "free market" lawlessness to satisfy man's alleged inherent evil, all his criminal appetites. He said the safety of the powerful depends on the maximum cheapness and brutalization of their subjects. "The surest wealth consists in a multitude of Laborious Poor.... To make the Society Happy ... it is requisite that great numbers ... should be Ignorant as well as Poor.... Going to School in comparison to Working is Idleness.... Men who are to remain and end their Days in a Laborious, tiresome and Painful Station of Life, the sooner they are put upon it at first, the more patiently they'll submit to it for ever after."Mandeville argued that "the best policy is to preserve men in their native simplicity, strive not to increase their numbers; let them never be acquainted with strangers or superfluities, but remove and keep from them everything that might raise their desires or improve their understanding."[2]Lord Shelburne's English estate housed the agents of influence for those financier powers, literary justifiers of their dominion over men, script-writers for managed insurrection. And Shelburne maintained Continental bases for his allies and subversive agents within French-speaking Switzerland, Geneva and its environs, and inside France proper, as will be described below.Shelburne assigned two projects to East India Company propagandist Adam Smith. First, to prepare the research outline for a study of the Roman Empire, needed to aid conceptually in erecting a new such pagan empire with London as its headquarters. (This assignment was later turned over to another East India Company researcher, Edward Gibbon, and completed as The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which blamed the intrusion of Christianity, the religion of the weak, for the collapse of the mighty.)Shelburne also commissioned Smith's work on an apologia for Free Trade. This, Smith completed in 1776 as The Wealth of Nations. He claimed that the power of an "invisible hand," and each man's pursuit of his selfish interest rather than anyone's desire to do good, causes economic well-being. (Wise men have since asked, is this invisible hand, financiers who rig stock bubbles, or Shelburnes who rig insurrections?) Smith warned Americans and Frenchmen not to dare the "artificial," government-promoted change from agrarian to industrial society; he attacked specifically the protectionist tradition of Jean Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for France's Louis XIV.In the 1780s, Shelburne installed as his agent the Nero-imitating writer Jeremy Bentham, in an apartment at Bowood. Bentham had written with contempt in October 1776, against the defense of human rights in America's July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence: "This they 'hold to be' a 'truth self-evident.' At the same time, to secure these rights they are satisfied that Government should be instituted. They see not ... that nothing that was ever called Government ever was or ever could be exercised but at the expense of one or another of those rights, that ... some one or other of those pretended unalienable rights is alienated ... In these tenets they have outdone the extravagance of all former fanatics."Bentham was to write speeches, translated by the Genevan Etienne Dumont, which went by diplomatic pouch and through other means to Paris, to be spoken by the street leaders of the Jacobin Terror: Marat, Danton, and Robespierre.In preparation for this work, Bentham wrote a 1785 essay defending "Paederasty," arguing that penalties against men's sex with children stem from society's "irrational antipathy" to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure; and a 1787 pamphlet, In Defense of Usury, attacking all restrictions on the lenders' right to take the highest interest rates they could get away with.The Shelburne-Bentham collaboration from this period is reliably considered the beginning of the modern British Secret Intelligence Service.

England, Switzerland, France

On the shores of Switzerland's Lake Geneva there were assembled, by the 1700s, a most peculiar set of banker-nobles. Some of these families descended from the Cathar chieftains, pagan buggerers who gravitated up the Rhône river. Some were well-to-do Protestant (Huguenot) emigrés from French religious strife. Most adhered to the sect of the earlier French emigré Genevan, John Calvin; this gave them ties to the Dutch financiers, and religious denominational affiliation with those Scots who served London's empire. They were joined later by embittered aristocratic refugees from the Terror in France. Thus for the corrupted Anglo-Dutch monarchies, French Switzerland became a knife pointed at the heart of France.The misnamed 18th-Century Enlightenment stank from Geneva to Paris, from Amsterdam to London. The undead Cathar pagan reverence for possessed objects—such as gold, land, piles of grain, the bodies of serfs—yielded the doctrine of physiocracy: that wealth is simply transferred from natural earth and the treasure under it, so man's creative discoveries and scientific advancements have no economic value. Adam Smith formed his Free Trade notions from the physiocrats while in France and Switzerland in the 1760s. He only chided their assertion that manufacturing is not equally necessary (e.g., no cannons, uniforms, or ships; no empire), while adhering to the mania that conscious Reason, by its nature benevolent, must never be permitted to intrude in economics.Geneva was ruled through the Council of 200, whose leading families intermarried and engaged jointly in espionage, covert propaganda, grain monopoly, colonial slave management, and foreign imperial military careers. Their life work often emulated the strategic tradition of Venice's higher aristocracy.Among Geneva family names notable in the late-18th-Century political storms, were Necker, André, Gallatin, Mallet, de Saussure, du Pan, and Prevost.The massively wealthy Geneva-born banker Jacques Necker was appointed the ambassador of Geneva to the court of France in 1764, and became French finance minister in 1777. Necker worked secretly with the British against the American-French alliance, and to wreck the French government. Necker's wife was formerly the fianceé of British imperial historian Edward Gibbon. Necker and his famous daughter, Germaine Necker de Staël, intrigued for both the "left" and "right" phases of the French turmoil.British army officer John André, son of a Geneva merchant banker, returned to Geneva University to be militarily trained before going to America as a master spy. Gen. George Washington hanged André for procuring Benedict Arnold's treason. The André family merged into the de Neuflizes and joined with Schlumberger and Mallet, forming a politically powerful financier grouping to be of great influence in the project known as Synarchism. These combined interests also appeared in Schlumberger, the huge oil services and covert operations specialists paralleling Dick Cheney's Halliburton.Albert Gallatin, raised on the knee of Geneva corruptionist writer Voltaire, hid out in the Maine woods during the American Revolution, then led the political attack, within Pennsylvania, against adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Later a U.S. Treasury Secretary, Gallatin led the Free Trade faction against American nationalists.Banker Jacques Mallet du Pan founded the British branch of the Mallet family. An intimate of Voltaire, and Britain's main French-speaking intelligence officer, Mallet du Pan teamed with Necker and Joseph de Maistre in leading the opposition to an American-style constitution in Europe.Gen. Augustin Prevost, very close to Voltaire, commanded Britain's invasion of South Carolina against the American Revolution. General Prevost introduced Britain's Scottish Rite Freemasonry onto American soil. His brother James Mark's widow married Aaron Burr and familiarized Burr with top British intelligence circles. Augustin's son Gen. George Prevost, the British Governor General of Canada, invaded New York state during the War of 1812. When Aaron Burr was in exile in England following his U.S. treason trial, the Mallet-Prevosts and Jeremy Bentham were Burr's co-hosts.Geneva's de Saussure family, emigrating to become leaders of the South Carolina plantation owners, coordinated the Massachusetts Tories and southern secession agitators, for British intelligence. Their Swiss castle, Frontenex, remained a mecca for visiting British noblemen, and they would later boast of intimacy with Britain's statesman and spymaster Lord Palmerston.In the lower social ranks, Jean-Paul Marat, from Neuchatel and Geneva, was trained for ten years by British intelligence in England before going on to murder thousands of France's intellectuals in the Reign of Terror. Geneva's Etienne Dumont was intimate with Gallatin, was the worldwide promoter and translator for Jeremy Bentham, and tutored Lord Shelburne's sons.The Shelburne machine owned France's Philippe Duke of Orleans, cousin and enemy to Louis XVI, and opponent of the French nation-building tradition which was now being applied to the American cause. Shelburne and the Duke of Orleans employed creatures from the swamp of mystics and charlatans centered in the freemasonic lodges of Lyons, France, in particular the Martinist Order. Among the Martinists who performed in the staged 1780s-1790s French destabilizations were Franz Anton Mesmer, Count Cagliostro (real name Giuseppe Balsamo), Jacques Cazotte, Fabré d'Olivet, and Joseph de Maistre.Martinism, a mocking perversion of Catholicism, considers Fallen Man to be in exile in this earthly existence, deprived of his powers. Man can only restore his original condition by initiation to the inner ranks of a secret society, through purgative violence—sado-masochistic rituals, torture, and human sacrifices. As a candidate learns to tolerate injury to others, he gives up his human identity, the sympathy which was celebrated in the Peace of Westphalia as the "Advantage of the Other." He loses the Platonic and Christian truth that men prosper by seeking to benefit others rather than themselves.This pagan ritualism breeds heartless imperial soldiers and fanatic gang leaders, as Mithraic Stoicism did for the Roman Caesars. After Martinism guided successive French coups, its banker-proprietors spun it into Synarchy and fascism—while labeling it Conservatism or fundamentalist Christianity.

The Shelburne Revolution

France announced in the Spring of 1778 that it was joining America's war for independence. Franklin and his friends acted quickly to strike a winning blow.Franklin's open letter to the Irish people, printed November 1778 in Dublin's Hibernian Journal, pleaded the common cause of America and Ireland against the British.The following Spring, 1779, France and Spain agreed to send a joint fleet carrying 60,000 soldiers to invade England and decide the war. Elements of the fleet set sail into the English Channel. An invasion of Ireland was also contemplated. Lafayette, back from his first North American fighting, planned to lead that invasion. He told the pro-American foreign minister, Count Vergennes, "the thought of seeing England humiliated, crushed, makes me thrill with joy."[3] Indecision, smallpox, and faulty intelligence combined to wreck the plan, but the fleet's presence in the Channel, coupled with events to the west, cast a dark shadow over London.Irish Protestant "Volunteers" began arming themselves, ostensibly to repel an expected American-French invasion. By late 1779, one hundred thousand Irishmen were drilling, and overtures for Catholic-Protestant solidarity were circulating. Thousands of handbills were distributed in Ireland: The American Congress offered Irish emigrants free land and full religious toleration.Lord Shelburne wrote from Ireland that he found "all classes more animated about America than in England. In every Protestant or Dissenter's house the established toast is success to the Americans."[4]His spies informed Shelburne that Franklin personally coordinated Ireland's alliance with the American rebels.[5]Meanwhile Shelburne acted through former East India Company director Thomas Walpole, to coordinate the treason of Walpole's close friend and banking colleague, Jacques Necker, the French finance minister. Necker and Walpole intrigued in France against Vergennes, to stop the "wasteful spending" for the French-American alliance. Another British spy, Geneva professor Paul-Henri Mallet, on King George III's payroll, "spent a good part" of Spring 1780 in the company of his cousin, Necker. He soon divulged Necker's views "under solemn oath of secrecy" to Lord Mountstuart, Mallet's intermediary to King George III and Lord Shelburne. " 'Were these talks to be disclosed,' he cautioned, they might 'greatly prejudice M. Necker,' who was now winning the support of the King [Louis XVI] ... Necker had been frank with the Swiss historian, according to the latter's own account. To introduce fiscal reforms, the court of France had to have peace [i.e., stop France's aid to the American Revolution, which was] a war he had never had nor could approve.... Necker ... was quoted by Mallet as expressing the fervent hope 'in God the English would be able to maintain their ground a little better this campaign.' "Mountstuart reported to London that "Necker was prepared to go behind [French Foreign Minister] Vergennes' back and effect a peace without satisfying even the minimum goals of France's ... allies and without regard to Louis XVI's own honored commitments. On December 1st, Necker, in the full assurance of his growing power, dispatched a secret message to [British Prime Minister] Lord North.... 'You desire peace,' Necker wrote. 'I wish it also.'"[6]Paul-Henri Mallet and Necker also proposed to the British government strategems to split the rebelling American colonies against each other, North versus South, in order to weaken their fight for independence.But Necker was soon forced out of his cabinet post.In the face of the tightening American-Irish-French-Spanish noose, Shelburne's protégé, British Col. Isaac Barré, wrote to Shelburne attacking the weakness and inept policy of the government: "We cannot stand aside and permit the country to take a cowardly course." The opposition should "by some bold and daring measure stun the Court, awake the people, and then take the reins of government into their hands."[7]Weary of the failed prosecution of the war in North America, and convinced that the Ministry of Lord George North would ruin his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a Jacobin mob to descend on London in June of 1780. The pretext was the nervous North government's granting of extremely limited "reforms" of the longstanding legal oppression of Catholics.Led by Lord George Gordon, the Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and Lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals. For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the assault on the Parliament. Eight hundred people died, with terrible property damage.Lord Shelburne, as head of the interior committee of the House of Lords, personally assured the maximum terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act which called out the Home Guard until violence had spread to every corner of the City. When the rioting began, Shelburne "was one of the few peers to reach the House of Lords without molestation. He was conspicuous in opposing the calling out of the military. 'I will ever resist and prevent such a matter if possible,' he [told the Lords]. The next day ... he defended the assemblages of the people, and felt that their shouts of 'No Popery!' ... came from sincere, if misguided, conviction."[8] The Lord Mayor of London was a spectator of the smashing and burning, declining to intervene on the grounds that "there are very great people at the bottom of the riot."[9]After a brief incarceration in the Tower of London, foreshortened by Shelburne's personal intervention with the Crown, the useful Lord Gordon went off to friendlier ground in the Netherlands. There, to the astonishment of his Scottish Presbyterian cronies, he became a convert to Jewish Cabalism, taking the name Israel bar Abraham. He shortly thereafter surfaced in Paris, working with the magician Cagliostro as a provocateur against Queen Marie-Antoinette, while situated as an occult advisor of hers; and from that position participated in Shelburne's intrigues against the French state. Later, the Jacobin insurrection in Paris would replay on a grander scale the earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the Bastille Prison and the unleashing of the criminals.When the London flames died, the Ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North held on to office, paralyzed and frightened, until the victory of the Washington's and Lafayette's American and French forces at Yorktown in October 1781, ushered him out.Shelburne went into the new Rockingham cabinet (March-July 1782) as Foreign Secretary for the Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. Shelburne became Prime Minister upon Rockingham's death. His brief personal command of the British government (July 1782 to April 1783) gave him imperial-overlord factional policy control at this decisive turning point. Shelburne set up parallel, separate peace negotiations with the U.S.A. and France, through which arrangement the seeds of the death of France were planted. Suspicions between the American and French allies were fanned; the pro-American faction, the intelligent inheritors of Colbertism, were weakened, as Shelburne prepared a new war within the peace.By this time, King George III had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India Company faction, the Venetian Party. As the result of these events, the shadow government formally took charge of the official state apparatus. The intelligence operations formerly housed at the East India Company were henceforth run out of the newly formed Foreign Office and the British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS).The Company and its financiers reigned supreme in Britain. The new British Empire would focus on subduing India under the Company's private army of 300,000, far exceeding the regular British government's forces; conquering China with Indian opium; and looting the world through uneven trade relations. Shelburne's imperial bankers permanently controlled British strategy, even after the East India Company per se was phased out in the 19th Century.Six months after Yorktown, General Washington's chief aide, Alexander Hamilton, who coordinated military intelligence for the alliance, described publicly the economic tradition which the American leaders would use to develop their country, when they had the necessary energetic government:

Rapid progress ... is in a great measure to be ascribed to the fostering care of government.... The trade of] France ... [would not] have been at this time in so prosperous a condition had it not been for the abilities and indefatigable endeavors of the great COLBERT. He laid the foundation of the French commerce, and taught the way to his successors to enlarge and improve it. The establishment of the woolen manufacture, in a kingdom, where nature seemed to have denied the means, is one among many proofs, how much may be effected in favour of commerce by the attention and patronage of a wise administration. The number of useful edicts passed by Louis the 14th, and since his time, in spite of frequent interruptions from the jealous enmity of Great Britain, has advanced that of France to a degree which has excited the envy and astonishment of its neighbors.[10]

In 1783, as Shelburne's new government signed a peace treaty, Adam Smith issued an updated version of the Wealth of Nations, complaining that "Mr. Colbert, the famous minister of Lewis XIV ... [endeavored to regulate] the industry and commerce of a great country upon the same model as the departments of a public office; and instead of allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way ... he bestowed upon certain branches of industry extraordinary privileges, while he laid others under as extraordinary restraints ... [Colbert preferred] the industry of the towns above that of the country."This unfair policy—by which France had become a greater manufacturing power than England—said Smith, was responsible for provoking cycles of retaliation between France and England, and peace could only be secured on the basis of "free trade" between them.Prime Minister Shelburne made his own public demand for unbridled free trade and usury on Jan. 27, 1783, while arguing in the House of Lords for ratification of the Treaty of Paris formally ending the American Revolution. Shelburne warned, "Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet on earth is free trade.... With more industry, with more capital, with more enterprise than any trading nation on earth, it ought to be our constant cry: Let every market be open."After the 1783 Peace treaty, before the Americans had a strong Federal government to protect their industry, British ships deluged U.S. ports with cheap goods, their brashly public purpose being to stifle America's infant manufacturing.In France, Adam Smith's theory of free trade was popularized by Swiss banker Jacques Mallet du Pan, who called Smith "the most profound and philosophic of all the metaphysical writers who have dealt with economic questions." Mallet du Pan's cousin Pierre Prevost, professor at the University of Geneva, would translate the works of Adam Smith and East India Company professor Thomas Malthus.Attacking Colbert's policies in 1786, Mallet du Pan lobbied strenuously with France's King Louis XVI to accept British Prime Minister William Pitt's offer of a treaty that would force France to give up all protective measures, and put the country at the mercy of Britain's "free trade" policies. At the same time the international banking houses, led by the Swiss, suddenly refused credit to the French government, and Louis XVI was forced to sign Pitt's Eden Treaty. The British trade war began immediately; they dumped cheap British manufactures on the French market and cut off the supply to France of vital Spanish wool.Within France, employment, agriculture, and trade quickly collapsed and starvation followed. In 1789, credit was again withdrawn from the French government. King Louis XVI was forced to reinstall Genevan banker Jacques Necker as minister of finance—after having fired him several times before—in order to "regain the confidence" of the banking community. Necker proposed austerity as the only solution to the crisis. He told the people of France that their troubles stemmed from "wasteful spending" by the King and Queen. A showdown approached.But in the years leading up to this decisive moment, the American faction had been battling the spooks swarming all about the Royal and wealthy circles of Paris.King Louis had appointed Benjamin Franklin head of a nine-member commission to probe the pretenses of the Martinist, Franz Mesmer, whose hypnotism ("mesmerism") was attributed to Animal Magnetism flowing from his hands. Astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly, secretary of the Academy of Sciences, wrote the report for Franklin's group, demolishing Mesmer's claims.Lyons Martinist Jacques Cazotte made a chilling and self-fulfilling "prophecy" at a 1788 dinner of the Academy of Sciences. Cazotte declared that the pro-Americans sitting at the table, including Jean Sylvain Bailly, were going to be executed within the next few years—that Bailly would die on the scaffold.Cagliostro had already published a Letter to the French (June 20, 1786) prophesying that "The Bastille shall be completely destroyed, and the land upon which it had been erected shall become a promenade area." The "Count" made this pronouncement after his meetings with the Scottish Rite Mother Lodge in London.Queen Marie-Antoinette was the particular target of Shelburne's Martinists. The Queen's brother, Austrian Emperor Joseph II, sponsored Wolfgang Mozart, whose music illuminated Joseph's Vienna and his sister Marie-Antoinette's Paris. Marie personally acted in a performance of The Marriage of Figaro, a play by Franklin's arms supplier Caron de Beaumarchais, satirizing the pornographic, still-feudal oligarchy (Mozart's opera was based on the play). The enraged Orleanists repeatedly interfered, trying to stop the play's performance at the Royal court, just as the Duke of Orleans—"Philippe Égalité" as he called himself for the Jacobins—had forced Mozart himself out of Paris in 1778.The gossip roiling Parisian streets against Marie-Antoinette came from the assassination warmup known as the Affair of the Necklace. Cagliostro and his occultist brothers enabled a designing countess, down on her luck, to embroil a Cardinal in a scam involving the purchase, for the Queen, of an exorbitantly expensive necklace she explicitly did not want. The arrest of the countess and Cardinal was played into a scandal vilifying Marie-Antoinette as extravagant, unfeeling, and foreign, amidst starvation. The Countess who stole the necklace escaped prison and fled to England where she was falsely celebrated as a poor victim of tyranny. The French King and Queen would be executed.

Terror Against a U.S.-Style Constitution

France, impoverished by British Free Trade, Necker's speculators, and ruinous debts, could only be prosperous again under the dignity of self-government and laws promoting productive economic growth. There had to be a written constitution, establishing the government's purpose and power to so promote the general welfare.The American example presented itself. Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had met at Franklin's home to hear the program for the projected Constitutional government—nationally promoted industry and public credit. Gen. George Washington was duly inaugurated the first President on April 30, 1789, and brought in Hamilton as Treasury Secretary to implement the Franklin program.On June 17, 1789, seven weeks after America's national government began, a French "national assembly" was put into action, with Jean Sylvain Bailly as its president. Bailly and General Lafayette, spokesmen for the republican alliance with America, proposed the necessity of a written constitution to place the king and the entire nation under law, allowing for publicly controlled credit to finance national development. This would be a leap far beyond the British "constitutional" monarchy, since Britain had no written constitution, and no real law other than the mere will of its private bankers, who dictated to the government and to the state church.On June 20, the King having shut the assembly out of their hall, the members met on a tennis court. All but one signed an oath, as a revolutionary act, asserting that political authority derived from the people and their representatives, and vowing to continue meeting at all costs until a national constitution would be written, ratified, and put in force. This was France's day of glory. The Tennis Court Oath launched what should have become known as the French Revolution.On July 11, Necker secretly left France on the King's advice. Savagely ignorant mobs were put into the streets protesting Necker's downfall—though he had not really been dismissed, and was himself manipulating the King. The mob carried busts of Necker and Orleans as heroes who should be in power.Rumor management (including lies of murder screamed by the Marquis de Sade out of his Bastille cell window, leading to his transfer to a lunatic asylum) steered a mob to storm the Bastille prison, freeing its remaining prisoners—an assassin, two mental cases, and four forgers. The attacking mob paraded through the streets with sticks bearing the heads of the prison's governor and several guards, whom they had murdered. Necker returned to his office 18 days after leaving.A struggle ensued. Lafayette was elected head of the national guard, and Bailly was chosen as Mayor of Paris. The "Jacobins" soon began meeting, haranguing the populace with bloodthirsty speeches crafted at Bowood. Though a Lafayette-Bailly constitution was adopted in 1791, by 1792 the terrorists had won the contest. All pretense of law was abolished, even as a Republic was declared. The republican Lazare Carnot led a brilliant military campaign to defend France from the kingdoms attacking it, but the Revolution's military defense was changed to outward imperial conquest.The word "republic" was an abuse, as those in power mass-executed their rivals, and were themselves executed in turn. Bailly and Lavoisier (Priestley's co-discoverer of oxygen and Franklin's gunpowder supplier), scientists who were the treasure and strength of France, were decapitated. American friends of the Revolution such as Tom Paine pleaded unsuccessfully for the lives of the King and Queen, and an end to the butchery.British historians adopted the lie that the French Revolution was a fight won by Left radicals over Right monarchists.Thomas Jefferson wrote to Lafayette in 1815, that the British ran the (traditionally called "left-wing") anarchists in the French Revolution, and were running the Boston ("right-wing") banker-insurrectionists in the period of the War of 1812:

The foreigner gained time to anarchise by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans, by the fraternal embraces of exaggerated and hired pretenders, and to turn the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order; and in the end, the limited monarchy [that Lafayette and Bailly] had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre.... The British ... fears of republican France being now done away, they are directed to republican America.... The Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres of Massachusetts are in the same pay, under the same orders, and making the same efforts to anarchise us, that their prototypes in France did there."[11]

John Quincy Adams later told the U.S. Congress, in his eulogy for Lafayette, "The movements of the insurgent Power were ... guided by secret springs, prompted by vindictive and sanguinary ambition, directed by hands unseen to objects of individual agrandizement."[12]During early 1789, Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote articles "On the British Constitution" and "On the Declaration of Rights," demanding France adopt the British parliamentary system, with a balance of power among the people, the nobles, and the crown, and an intermediary body of advisors such as the Privy Council, which must assure that authority over the issuance of credit would be kept strictly in the hands of central bankers, independent of the control of an elected government.Necker and Mallet du Pan had long worked together against the spread of Franklin's American economics and constitutional ideas. Mallet complained that the American Revolution had spawned a "swarm of fanatics" in Europe.Mallet du Pan's ultimate political theory may be summed up in his outburst in a letter he had written to his teacher Voltaire in 1772: "I shall exhaust all the feeble enlightenment that I owe to you in eradicating the work of St. Boniface."[13] The Eighth-Century missionary Boniface Christianized Germany. Thus, what Mallet means is, "I work to overturn Christianity's original takeover of Europe—this was a catastrophe which hindered the rightful unlimited rule of barbarian warlords."So Mallet du Pan and Necker diligently collaborated with an "expert" enemy of the nation-state, Joseph de Maistre, a satanic Martinist deep in the lodge circle of Lyons. A Savoy nobleman, de Maistre in 1792 fled upon the advance into Savoy of the French Revolutionary armies. When Mallet du Pan and Necker and their families consulted with him, in Geneva and Lausanne 1792-1793, Necker was "retired" from French office, but deeply involved in managing events within the Revolutionary turmoil, and Mallet du Pan was the principal director of Continental intelligence for the British crown. They put de Maistre onto the world stage as the spokesman for the darkest feudal reaction within the modern era, directing the role he was to play in the creation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Beast Project, Napoleon

What did Necker and Mallet du Pan want from de Maistre?Listen to Mallet spin out his scenario, published in January 1789, as Franklin's friends prepared to export the American Constitution to France. Mallet wrote of England's past, to suggest a future to be imposed on France:The blood of Charles I and ten battles only submitted Parliament and the nation to their own army, which was soon enthralled to its cleverest chiefs. Democracy had destroyed the constitution; this democracy led to an oligarchy of generals; the Protectorate beat down everything, Parliament, army, sects, factions, and Cromwell reigned alone over a people whom frenzy had deprived of its vigor and its reason.[14]Then, Mallet went on to say, the monarchy was restored and few states have been as free of political troubles as has England since then.The discussions in the salon of Necker and his daughter, Mme. de Staël, led directly to de Maistre's writing his 1796 Considerations on France. Published the following year, the book transported the imagination of the upstart general Napoleon Bonaparte, who was a ready actor in the horrible order of events foreshadowed in Mallet's scenario.Most of the themes in de Maistre's book, the evil nature of fallen man, the role of Providence, why the innocent victim must pay for the guilty, are taken from the work of Claude Louis Saint-Martin, high priest of the Martinist order of which de Maistre became the most prominent representative following his two decades of freemasonic work.[15]It will be seen below, what Napoleon got from de Maistre, and where he went with it.Corsican-born army officer Napoleon Bonaparte was known as a Jacobin and Robespierrist, a murderer and a bandit, a revolutionary executioner. Thus in 1795, when Paris rebels rose against yet another intended change of regimes, the then-head of the government, Paul Barras, appointed Napoleon to block the rebels' advance. The Corsican directed cannon grapeshot fire, and mowed down the rebellious people in the streets. Barras, who now advanced Napoleon upward in the army, was himself an extravagant corruptionist who took his orders from banker Jacques Necker.Barras shared his mistress, Josephine de Beauharnais, with Napoleon. She was one of a set of political prostitutes along with Mme. de Staël (known as the "ugly beauty"), ladies on the lookout for available executioner-generals to take charge of French affairs. Napoleon married Josephine and became commander in chief of the French Army in Italy, under the Barras-led French regime called the Directory. The loot from his foreign conquests were shared among the Directory and its banker sponsors. In a notorious 1797 scene of staged female hysteria, recorded in Barras's memoires, Mme. de Staël compelled Barras to make her dissolute plaything, Charles Maurice Talleyrand-Perigord, the foreign minister. Napoleon came back from abroad in 1799 and made himself a dictator. Necker's Talleyrand was Napoleon's intermediary to obtain Barras's resignation, and Napoleon kept Talleyrand as foreign minister.Talleyrand helped Napoleon conquer Germany and Italy, helped him become Emperor, helped him subdue the Pope, and held him off from invading England. Talleyrand's enormous wealth from bribes and theft was deposited in England. As the slaughter exhausted France and Europe, Talleyrand began moving to the next phase of things, betraying Napoleon—who accurately called him "shit in a silk stocking." The British and European nobility who finally crushed France and restored the monarchy, rewarded Talleyrand by reinstalling him as foreign minister.

Devil de Maistre Whispers to Napoleon

Joseph de Maistre's book Considerations on France appeared in 1797, giving Napoleon some two years to reflect on its message for him, before he seized power. British historian Isaiah Berlin reports, "Napoleon ... was impressed by the brilliance of de Maistre's writings, which he was said to find politically sympathetic." And de Maistre admired Napoleon, whose "clear grasp of the realities of power, his open contempt for democrats, liberals and intellectuals ... but above all the contrast between the stupidity and weakness of the Bourbons [royal line] and the military and the administrative genius of a man who once again lifted France to a pinnacle of glory, could not but appeal powerfully to the apostle of realism and authority."[16]Through his book, at first published anonymously, de Maistre whispered in Napoleon's ear: I speak for the invisible ruling powers: Providence will adopt you, if you are bold enough to make yourself the Man of Destiny. You may commit all crimes, make limitless war on the world. God himself wants you to commit as many crimes as possible—through them you will become God on Earth.Let us listen to de Maistre's own words—keeping in mind that the author is regarded today as a Christian authority by Dick Cheney's conservative supporters:

Unhappily, history proves that war is, in a certain sense, the habitual state of mankind, which is to say that human blood must flow without interruption somewhere or other on the globe, and that for every nation, peace is only a respite.... If you ... examine people in all possible conditions from the state of barbarism to the most advanced civilization, you always find war....Yet there is room to doubt whether this violent destruction is, in general, such a great evil as is believed.... First, when the human soul has lost its strength through laziness, incredulity, and the gangrenous vices that follow an excess of civilization, it can be retempered only in blood.... Mankind may be considered as a tree which an invisible hand is continually pruning and which often profits from the operation. In truth the tree may perish if the trunk is cut or if the tree is overpruned; but who knows the limits of the human tree? What we do know is that excessive carnage is often allied with excessive population.... Now the real fruits of human nature—the arts, sciences, great enterprises, lofty conceptions, manly virtues—are due especially to the state of war. We know that nations have never achieved the highest point of the greatness of which they are capable except after long and bloody wars. [emphasis in the original][17]Pagan or Christian, God loves human sacrifices! He protects the guilty, not the innocent!We are continuously troubled by the wearisome sight of the innocent who perish with the guilty. But ... we can consider [this] solely in the light of the age-old dogma thatthe innocent suffer for the benefit of the guilty.It was from this dogma ... that the ancients derived the custom of sacrifices that was practiced everywhere.... Christianity came to consecrate this dogma, which is perfectly natural to man although appearing difficult to arrive at by reason. [emphasis in original][18]In telling Napoleon that destiny explains his success, and that the hand of God is guiding him, de Maistre wrote, "[It is] neither paper money nor the advantage of numbers [that] allows the French to invade Italy without cannons."[19]

(De Maistre's editors explain that "Napoleon in his first Italian campaign in April 1796 was short of artillery because of a lack of horses to move his cannon.")

You can destroy any opposition, de Maistre implied, if you are not squeamish!Tyrants succeeded one another and the people always obeyed.... Their masters have gone so far as to crush them by mocking them. They told the people, ... 'If you dare to refuse [our law], we will shoot you down with grapeshot to punish you for not wanting what you want.' And they did."[20]

(De Maistre's editors explain that this referred to "the uprising ... which young General Bonaparte put down with grapeshot.")

Does Destiny call your name?When Providence decrees the more rapid formation of a political constitution, there appears a man invested with an indefinable power: he speaks and makes himself obeyed. But these marvelous men belong perhaps only to the world of antiquity and to the youth of nations.[21]Take it! Only the Unseen Powers decide who rules.This is how counter-revolutions are made. God warns us that he has reserved to Himself the establishment of sovereignties by never confiding to the masses the choice of their masters.... Thus the Roman people gave themselves masters while believing they were opposing the aristocracy by following Caesar."[22]Despite your lowly birth, all History has been waiting for you!There has never existed a sovereign family to which one can assign a plebeian origin; if this phenomenon should appear it would be epoch-making.... We often hear it said, 'If Richard Cromwell [son of Oliver Cromwell, who seized England—remember Mallet's scenario] had had his father's genius, he would have made the Protectorate hereditary in his family.' How true!"[23]

Napoleon took the advice, to see himself as such a Man of Destiny. By insane wars throughout Europe, and a series of coups, he made himself Emperor, his rule secured by a pervasive secret police, censorship, arrest of dissenters. And though he was short, he made himself God. The Pope was forced to sign a treaty putting Napoleon in charge of the Church in the French Empire. Bishops and priests had to teach as he said, swear loyalty to him, take their pay from him, report political conspiracies to his spies. And he did as Cromwell did not, creating Kings and nobility out of his heirs, family and friends (a Mallet became a French Baron).

'America Is Not Possible!'

The fourth chapter of de Maistre's Considerations, entitled "Can the French Republic Last?", was, according to de Maistre's editors, "apparently a direct response to Benjamin Constant's 'Objections Drawn from Experience Against the Possibility of a Republic in a Large State.'"[24]Benjamin Constant was the lover of Germaine Necker de Staël from 1794 until 1806. When de Maistre's book was published, Constant and de Staël were in Paris sponsoring Barras, and Constant took part in the 1799 coup establishing Napoleon's rule.In this fourth chapter, de Maistre insisted that "nature and history together prove that a large indivisible republic is an impossibility ... a large and free nation cannot exist under a republican government." He "proves" this assertion: "If we are told that a die thrown a billion times had never turned up anything but five numbers—1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—could we believe that there was a 6 on one of the faces? NO ... one of the faces is blank or ... one of the numbers is repeated.... Fortunetirelessly throwing the die for over four thousand years. Has LARGE REPUBLIC ever been rolled? No. Therefore that number is not on the die." [emphasis in the original][25]Note the queerly hysterical cheapness of this argument. He first hints at the real problem: "There is nothing but violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by a modern philosophy that tells us all is good, whereas evil has tainted everything, and in a very real sense, all is evil..." [emphasis in the original].His editors explain, "de Maistre is castigating the 'best of all possible worlds' optimism that seemed to characterize some Eighteenth-Century thinkers. Of course de Maistre was not alone in this reaction; Voltaire'sCandide, for example, included a brilliant satire on philosophical optimism."[26]"This is the best of all possible worlds," is the loving idea Gottfried Leibniz gave the modern world from Plato and Christ, for which Voltaire mocked him in Candide. This Platonic, Leibnizian heritage, carried through the America of Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, is the central issue.De Maistre lets the underlying rage of his faction spill out in a way that shocks us across the centuries:

Not only do I doubt the stability of the American government, but the particular establishments of English America inspire no confidence in me. The cities, for example, animated by a hardly respectable jealousy, have not been able to agree as to where the Congress should meet; none of them wanted to concede the honour to another. In consequence they have decided to build a new city to be the capital. They have chosen a very favourable location on the banks of a great river and decreed that the city should be called Washington. The sites of all the public buildings have been marked out, the work has begun, and the plan of this queen city has already made the rounds in Europe. Essentially these is nothing in all this that surpasses human power; a city may easily be built. Nevertheless, there is too much deliberation, too much humanity in this business, and one could bet a thousand to one that the city will not be built, that it will not be called Washington, and that the Congress will not meet there. [emphasis in the original][27]

The madness and wreckage that the defeated Napoleon left behind, kept the American model out of Europe for the time being. But de Maistre was not an accurate forecaster on the destiny of nations. The United States survived a Civil War, 1861-1865, despite sponsorship of the insurgent slaveowners by the British and their French junior partner under Bonaparte's nephew, Napoleon III.Not only survived: Did the impossible! Abraham Lincoln's radically nationalist economics transformed America into the world's greatest industrial power within 20 years. The example of America's Promethean success, under high tariffs and huge public investments, was deliberately placed before Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Meiji Japan, Sun Yat-sen's China, Arthur Griffith's Ireland, M.G. Ranade's India, Carlos de Olagíbel's Mexico, Rafael Nuñez's Colombia. The impending end of peasant backwardness, the age of electricity, steel mills, and powered transport, under explicitly anti-imperial politics, meant the coming end of world power for the old financier oligarchs.In this global showdown, three U.S. Presidents were shot down: Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley. And America's European enemies assembled a new version of the assault weapon earlier employed in France. Joseph de de Maistre's work was the glue for the imperial bankers' politics—including his insistence that the executioner (or assassin) is all that holds society together; and his demand for the Church to rule a world from which Reason and Progress have been banished—a world under Higher Powers which are, candidly, the opposite of God.The new imperial techniques of that era were built upon the array of manipulation that had gone into the beast-project, Napoleon. A Martinist magician cohort of de Maistre's named Fabré d'Olivet had been hired as a top official of Napoleon's war department. As occult advisor, he too whispered to Bonaparte on Providence and the Triumph of the Will.As the influence of America's sovereign-nation success began transforming Germany, in 1878, the students of d'Olivet and de Maistre were formed into the distinctive movement which was to become known as Synarchism. Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, in his book, Mission des Souverains, continued de Maistre's attack, calling the 1648 Peace of Westphalia "an anarchistic Republic of powers armed against each other, ... that the fundamental law of the sovereignty of force obliges, under penalty of death, to function in this fashion, until the abrogation and replacement of this law by a better one."[28] The "better law", Synarchism, is the dissolution of nations in the night of bankers' dictatorship.George W.F. Hegel put his admiration for Bonaparte's evil at the center of his concept of the "end of history."

Robespierre set up ... Virtue and Terror [as] the order of the day.... This tyranny could not last; for ... all interests ... revolted against this terribly consistent Liberty ... [in] so fanatical a shape. An organized government is introduced, analogous to the one that had been displaced; [further coups] proved ... the necessity of a governmentalpower. Napoleon restored it as a military power, ... establishing himself as an individual will at the head of State: he knew how to rule, and soon settled the internal affairs of France.... But the antithesis of [Good Feeling] and Mistrust made its appearance.... Thus agitation and unrest are perpetuated." [emphasis in the original][29]